Skip to main content

About your Search

20130302
20130310
SHOW
Cavuto 17
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 78
CNNW 51
FBC 50
CSPAN 45
KQED (PBS) 24
CNBC 23
CSPAN2 22
KGO (ABC) 19
KPIX (CBS) 18
KNTV (NBC) 17
SFGTV2 16
CURRENT 14
KTVU (FOX) 12
KRCB (PBS) 8
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 8
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 534
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 536 (some duplicates have been removed)
irresponsible for the federal government to run deficits because you talked about this coming army of baby boomers and you've said it was going to hit in 2012 and that's when we needed to be ready. >> but the point is it was irresponsible to be running deficits when the economy was at full employment. and it didn't need the support from the federal government. we mised that window. we didn't do it. we didn't pay down the debt when the economy was fairly strong. now we're in a situation where trying to -- obsessing about debt right now at a time when the economy is very weak, whenever dollar you cut from federal spending is probably going to take a dollar and a half out of g.d.p., it's probably going to lead to substantial increase in unemployment. that's a -- now is exactly not the time to do that. we do have a longer term problem. we should have used -- it would only help a little bit but we should have used the '90s. we should have used the bush years to pay down debt so we would have come into the era of baby boomers retiring with little debt. we didn't do that and that's not the choice
on cutting the deficit and neither one of them. one proposed by the president and lacks tax increases and the other by democrats. neither one has spending increase and there is it a net increase in spending. >> right, the hysteria is much ado about it is it rich to watch the democrats pointing to the debt clock as if it is a distraction to the issue at hand. we are creeping to 17 trillion and borrowing 40 stents of year dolla americans know that it is it ridiculous and expanding universal preschool as a selling tool for the democrats to get more power in 2014. >> rick, what about that. the president is talking about a balanced approach. the last tax increase that had zero spending cut or the current one have spending cuts. they're moving things around. >> that is not true. >> if is true, rick. hommed on. it is it true. rick, hold on. you can't sape that. you are entitled to the opinion but not the facts. >> there are no spending cuttings. >> they cenr no budget cuts . the democrats last proposal has a net increase in spending. >> you are not saying no spinding cuts but when you add in
than most other forms of deficit reduction and does little to address long-term imbalances that stem from demographic shifts and the excess growth of spending compared to revenues. given the ongoing debates over the federal budget, the main theme of my remarks today will be the economic case for a balanced responsible approach for deficit reduction which has always been the administration's position. a critical point, one which others have made but frequently gets lost in public discussions about fiscal policy is that the federal budget is not an end in itself. the federal budget is simply the means through which we as a nation seek to achieve our economic priorities. as president obama eloquently stated in his state of the union address last month, the north star guiding our course as a country must be a growing economy that creates good middle-class jobs. this requires taking steps to make sure that america is a magnet for good jobs that pay decent wages and that workers have the skills needed to fill those jobs. we must also address the federal budget deficit because if we do not
on a couple of house resolutions. to include an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit. thank you for watching. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 5, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable ron desantis to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank
about deficits and not a lot of time talking about how do we get out of this. >> the lone few voices of sanity has been memberses of the congressional caucus. they remain marginalized in getting people to focus on the deficit. many call it a victory despite their costs. they set up the cuts and said this will be the first significant victory. what we got will set out in changing washington. >> the trajectory of people's way that they are being spun. the sequester is a bad thing and it's obama's fault hence the hash tag. at the end they said it's a good thing. i felt like members of the tea party caucus. they said look, this is what we wanted. paul ryan said this in 2011. do you view this as a success for fellow travelers? >> absolutely. i think you are right in terms of republicans. the last part i would point out is if we are talking about the balanced approach with revenues and spending cuts, that's the fiscal cliff. that was part of this debate. >> for started last year. >> we were supposed to have the biggest hike in history. they kicked out three months, but if you are looking f
cannot continue these huge deficits, so we have to get spending and revenues to a new equilibrium and on a sustainable path. the problem is if we do not do sequestration, there is nothing else to do, and there was an agreement to have a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. we have some revenue increases with the fiscal cliff discussions. now the president is saying i want some more revenues, and both probably have legitimate positions in their own ways, but they are just talking to each other and not getting it done. there is nothing to replace it with. our fiscal situation is not sustainable. tavis: there are two or three things. in no particular order, you reference the fiscal cliff conversation in january. i could not have asked this question a couple years ago when you were in the fdic's share. your mind, how much of this is about politics? that is to say the president was reported to have clean the clocks of the republicans in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and everybody knew then when it came to this point, the republicans were going to look to exact some reve
spending, we would still be running a deficit of $.5 trillion a year. most people understand the problem -- the mandatory spending. not bringing that into the discussion makes the rest of this an exercise in futility. >> it sounds like what you guys are talking about are things to give dod more flexibility to implement sequestration. do you plan anything to delay it or turn it off? >> that was the second point i tried to make. we are not saying this is done. we are going to keep after it. i gave you three different proposals that would save money in other places other than the sequestration. we are going to keep looking for options. we are not going to say this is done. we have opportunities coming up as budget resolutions come up, with the debt ceiling in may. there is a lot of opportunity to go. i would say the only area of government spending that has an authorization bill signed into law by the president is defense. as we are looking for appropriations bills to pass for the rest of the year, passing defense, which is consistent with the authorization bill he has already signed into
percent of the gdp. financing most of the federal deficit by far. happy to land very low interest rates in a seemingly prosperous world. would anybody really designed a system that would commit the chinese to run surpluses and japan on top of it and trillions of dollars cumulatively over a few years? and we ran deficits of that size. for a period of time. without suspecting that something is going to happen in a serious way to upset the system. it is all very nice to be able to finance your deficits, but what happens? sooner or later, the world is giving you a lots of rope on this. at what part does rope get to the point that it strangles you? we tried to avoid that. i am not sure that is true yet. the lack of discipline in the system, which is replicated within europe, where deficits can go on indefinitely in the eurozone until finally something happens and we find ourselves with a degree of indebtedness that is not easy to manage. the other area is a lot more parochial. what is going on in our financial regulatory system in the united states? we had dodd frank after considerable debat
, raise the deficit. we all know that deaf of sits are bad things -- deficits are bad things. bigger deficits are bad, but other things were not completely close, and there was a very cogent rationale for a stimulus package, and i think even for a bigger one. the biggest message of the book, to me as the author, is this paradox that this were massive government interventions ip deuced and -- induced and caused by the fact that the private markets ran amok. the private markets that went off the track, the government came in -- not perfectly, but pretty effectively -- to try to put things back on track. and yet at the end of the day, we witnessed, and you've all witnessed it as i have, this quite sharp backlash against, quote, big government in the united states. now, americans have never liked big government. you call anything big government, and americans will be against it reflexively. but there was a reason for the government interventions. it was a, it was a market failure in the financial world the likes of which we've not seen since the 1930s. and if we had done nothing about it
in congress are protecting tax loopholes, wasteful spending in the tax code, that increases the deficit instead of solving problems. instead of closing tax loopholes for big oil, republicans want cuts in head start for little children. big oil, over little children. instead of closing tax loopholes for corporations that shipped jobs overseas, 750,000 jobs will be lost here. because of the sequester and the continuing resolution that contains the sequester and the fix we're in because of the refusal of the republican leadership to close those loopholes. instead of ensuring americans pay their fair share, our military readiness will be impaired. unless the defense -- we have kids who won't get proper training to take them into harm's way an health care for america's military families will be cut. there is an answer to all of this, that is we need to close, stop the tax, the spending in our tax code. everybody talks about reducing spending as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do. and we all adepree we need to reduce it. that's why $1.6 trillion in spending cuts and we can try t
the deficit. they decided that tax break for the wealth off and well-connected is more important than protecting our middle-class families and military families from these cuts. i think we can combine smart spending cuts and changes to the tax code that makes it more fair without raising anyone's taxes. that's how we can reduce our deficit without laying off workers. i don't think that is too much to ask. it is the kind of approach i proposed for two years now. a majority of the american people agree with me, including a majority of republicans. we just need republicans in congress to catch up with their own party and the rest of the country. i know there are republicans in congress who would rather see if tax loopholes closed than let these cuts go through. there are democrats who would rather do smart entitlement reform than let the cuts go through. there's a caucus of common sense throughout. i'm going keep reaching out of them to fix this for good. american people are weary of partisanship. this is america. we don't bounce from one manufactured crisis to another. we make smart cho
. it is this government that cut the deficit, has a million private sector jobs and has lower interest rates that is vital for the future of this economy. if he wants to see the countries that maintained their rating is countries like canada. why doesn't he admit that his answer to extra borrowing is more borrowing. admit it. >> and he talks about borrowing, i don't know the last time he check was, the deficit is rising not falling this year. he's borrowing $212 pounds more than he planned because of his failure to grow the economy. now, let's hear the reason for the down grade before can we take it from his answer so far, that he believes that this loss of the country's aaa status that he says was a test has nothing to do with him. >> i'm the one saying this credit rating does matter. it demonstrates we have to go further and faster on reducing the deficit. the fact that he won't answer the question about borrowing more , he will never sit on this side of the house when he won't answer the question about what the country needs to know. if he wants to look at what is happening in this country, isn't it in
smarter ways to grow our economy and reduce the deficit than the arbitrary cuts in the sequester that recently went into place. we had an open and honest conversation about issues like immigration reform and gun violence and other areas where we can work together to move this country forward. next week i will attend both the democratic and republican party meetings in the capital to continue those discussions. the fact is, america is a nation of different beliefs and different points of view. that is part of what makes a strong erie it makes our democratic debates sometimes messy and a lot of the times -- that is what makes us strong. it makes our democratic debates sometimes messy and a lot of the time stressed rating stuff but what binds us together will always be more harmful than what drives us apart. as democrats and republicans, we may disagree on the best way to achieve our goals, that i'm confident we can agree on what those goals should be -- a strong and vibrant middle class, an economy that allows businesses to grow, and education system that gives more americans the s
this, president clinton passed what was then a huge deficit reduction bill that included 50% tax increases and 50% spending cuts. one to one, tax increases to spending cuts. including medicare and medicaid spending cuts. and then pushed by newt gingrich when the republicans won back the house and senate. president clinton signed even more republican spending cuts into law. the team of clinton and gingrich in the 1990s did not kick the deficit can down the road, they kicked it out of the budget. they effectively eliminated the deficit, and had us on the way to actually building a budget surplus. a surplus that was going to be necessary to help financial future government spending, including two wars that no one knew were coming. that surplus was wiped out in the stroke of a pen when president bush signed his tax cuts into law. the tax cuts that have contributed mightily to our deficit and debts. tax cuts that were, of course, voted for by john boehner. joining me now are karen finney, former dnc communications director and ezra klein columnist for the washington post. both are msn
economics writer and editorial board writer at "the wall street journal." you are a deficit hawk. you must be ecstatic about the forced spending cuts in washington one week into this sequester, the sky hasn't fallen despite the president's warnings, the dow is flying high, we've got job creation continuing. do you think we're on the right track despite having a president many consider anti-business? >> not quite as jubilant as you are, ali, but it was a very positive jobs report, and these are the kind of numbers we need as you said correctly for the next three or four years and that we should expect give than we're in a kroefr. i do think that the sequester has really been a nonevent with respect to the financial markets. businesses are plowing ahead. and i think a lot of the dire forecasts that cutting government spending was going to hurt the economy, look, it just started so we've only had this for a week or two, but i was one of the people who said, look, this might be a positive thing for the economy in terms of giving business some assurance that at least washington will start cutti
pipe hive and so we begin here with this graph the federal budget surplot plus or deficit. obviously it's been some time since we have run anything like a significant budget surplus we went into the recession carrying a farrell substantial deficit and obviously that really ballooned and got much much worse and what we are facing now are really the biggest bulletin deficits that the united states economy has faced since the second world war we are moving in the right direction it's getling smogger and it's still a farrell daunting challenge and this is what was westbound bend the whole fiscal cliff last year and we ended up with an 11th hour deal to avoid the worst of the fiscal live kcliff and i'm not going to read all of the stuff on this slide but basically what we got was tax increases that effect the working poor primarily and the very affluent and not really not much of an impact on the middle class and you can may be have your own political opinions about that but the spending cuts didn't really take much effect at all. the spending cuts are now poised to go into effect march 1
to deficits the american people expect from us. today's vote is on whether you think sequester is rational. the next vote will be on keeping government open and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. olson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. olson: mr. speaker, 177 years ago on this day the alamo fell. every texan fighting for liberty was killed. the letter sent by the alamo commander was pleading for help. to the people of texas and all americans in the world, i have 1,000 or more of the mixans by santa ana. i have not lost a man in 24 hours. the enemy has demanded a surrender of the garrison. if the fort is taken, i've answered that demand with a cannon shot. i am determined to sustain myself as long as possible in dying like a solder who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country. victory or death. lieutenant barrett t
. this is not the time to be obsessing with the budget deficit. the budget deficit is an issue for the next decade, not an issue for you. >> the thing that i find so amazing is there are a lot of things we can do. we have bridges that are falling down, killing people in the middle of the country in minnesota. we have roads that are buckling. we have houses with sinkholes. it's not like we would be making up projects. >> well, the fact of the matter we have actually canceled a lot of public investment in the last couple of years at state and level year because of the scarcity of money. this are potholes not being fixed, bridges not maintained. think about it. it's crazy. we have more than a million unemployed construction workers. we have capital with no place to go, which is why interest rates are so low. this is a time when for heaven's sake, the government should be taking advantage of that cheap money and unemployed labor to be fixing stuff. and instead we've been slashing public investment. and school teachers also, that's investment in our kids, investment in the, if and we've been slashing t
could be tougher. i mean, that is a harder issue, it seems to me, to these real deficit hawks that you have, especially in the house republican caucus. i do think we're going to have, you know, march is going to go out like a lamb when it comes to fiscal politics. >> that's for sure. david, you guys had a very interesting piece over the weekend about the affect on the washington region, and in many ways the washington region protected from the recession the great recession that everybody else experienced. not just because of government stem husband. it really had to do with the fact that we're fighting two wars. defense contracts in particular in northern virginia. what i found fascinating was how many people you found that said, you know what, maybe it's time for us to take a haircut. >> now it's going to be less so. assuming some version of these cuts going through. whether it's these or some point they come back and try to make them a little bit less blunt, but my guess is the washington region economically will still be okay. even if it's not quite so good because it is by some mea
and others say that social security is stable and is not a problem or a drag on our debt or deficit. could you compare the two points of view? guest: i am happy to. i write a lot about this. let me say before i begin speaking that if you line up 10 experts and ask them how severe is the social security financing problem, i will probably be among be one or two experts that believe it is more severe than the other eight or nine. i'm not in the middle. let me lay out why i believe i am right. first, the social security shortfall or is larger than it is for medicare. medicare is a bigger problem for the general federal budget, but the size and changes we have to make in the social security in order to keep it a program it is much greater than it is. a lot of people do not realize that even though we consider and expect medicare to be the bigger driver of cost down the line, over the past few years, social security costs have grown more rapidly. they burn in the aggregate and in the first time for the obama administration. it grew faster than medicare. the current social security shortfall is l
four straight years of a trillion dollar annual deficit. this modest reduction of 2.4% in spending over the next six months is a little more than the average american experienced just two months ago when their own pay went down when the payroll tax holiday expired. look, if we can't -- >> you call it modest, senator. if i can get back to that one word you used. you call this a modest cut. yet you know the cbo said it will cost 750,000 jobs. it will probably ding gross domestic product by half a percent. we have heard that policemen will be laid off, firemen will be laid off, teachers will be laid off, crime is going to go up. the military will be hallowed out. your own republicans are so worry ed about the defense department and yet you're calling it this modest. there's this complete disconnect, seems to me, about what's actually going on here, when you look at what democrats say is going on and republicans say is going on. >> by any objective standard cutting 2.4% out of $3.6 trillion is certainly something we can do. >> over a short period of time, albeit. >> we promised the american
for us to go about deficit reduction. it makes sense for us to take a balanced approach that takes a long view and doesn't reduce our commitment to things like education and basic research that will help us grow over the long term. >> meanwhile a new survey from the national association for business economics shows a majority of economists are opposed to the automatic sequester cuts but say washington does need a sound plan to reduce the nation's budget deficit. well, joining us now to discuss the impact of the sequester spending cuts we're happy to have representative ed royce a republican from california. congressman royce is also a senior member of the financial services committee. welcome, congressman. let me begin by asking you. it's a big employer in your district. were you getting calls from employees today and what were you saying? >> i didn't get any calls from employees of rathion but i think most people understand at this point we just saw a massive increase in taxes at the end of the year. the president got what he wanted. huge tax increases. if you think about it, when we're
to happen because they have reduced -- refused to budge on closing a single loophole to reduce the deficit. they decided to protect special- interest tax breaks for the well-off and they think that is more important than protecting our military or middle-class families. i do believe that we can and must replace these cuts with a more balanced approach and ask something from everybody. smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, tax reform that makes the code more fair for families and businesses without raising tax rates. and we can responsibly lower the deficit without laying off workers or forcing parents to scramble for child care or scramble for financial aid for college students. i don't think that is too much to ask and i don't think that is partisan. it is what i ran on last year. the majority of american people agree with me on this approach. including a majority of republicans. they need to catch up with their own party and their country on this. i know there are republicans in congress that privately say they would rather close tax loopholes that let these cuts go through. i know th
the deficit the way we are, whether it's the tax increases on anybody or big spending. most of the economists that have looked at this, including the cbo and says that the factors of this obama administration talking about closing loopholes, interest, zero to maybe 1/10 of 1% on gdp, and we are going to cut the debt. i think we do it in the long-term, not the short-term, but look, here is the central problem that you can't ignore. spending right now is about 23% of gdp. federal spending. taxes are at historic lows for about 16% of gdp. domestic discretionary spending is lower than it's been since 1962. so, you cannot cut your way-- spending cut your way out of this problem. if you want to attack the debt and deficit you have to have a combination of the two otherwise the math doesn't add up. >> brenda: gary b, let's do the math what the ending of the payroll tax holiday has done so far. is that evidence perhaps that we can't hike taxes more? >> well, i think you just saw it, brenda, with what's happening at wal-mart. they clearly stated that you know, that's their constituency, people that ta
was revised upward.dp was revised upward. it's the first time since 1985 that three straight months of deficit were posted. the january current account deficit was about $3.8 billion. the trade balance registered a deficit of more than $15 billion. exports were up 6.7% while imports increased 6.6%. market observers saw a surplus of $12 billion in the income balance. that was up 6.8% in yen terms from a year earlier. japan's economy posted growth. the office said in its preliminary report that the gdp declined on an annualized basis in the same period. let's get a check on the markets. the dollar is higher against the yen. as you can see it's currently quoted right below that 94.95 to 97. traders are buying dollars as their more optimistic about the u.s. economy. that's after weekly jobless claims came in better than the market consensus. the euro is also higher against the yen. that's after the european central bank president said on thursday that the regional economy is stabilizing. the euro against the yen being quoted at 124.34 to 40. now onto stocks. tokyo share prices continue to rally. t
unfamiliar to me. >> was the deficit in the debt and the deficit. >> the debt and the deficit, not too sure. >> do you know what the deficit is? >> no. >> tune out the debt is? john: now, if i am of your would say, they just picked out the ones who didn't know. most did. >> no. there was only one who actually knew. not only what the words meant, but the difference between debt and deficit. there was only one person who could actually explain what those two things meant. john: i have to think about it sometime. i would note. >> they both star with the. and stand their is a bit of confusion. john: and like many people, students engage in magical thinking about government. some know that there is a problem. one guy even bragged about beating the system. >> beaten system. decadence of loans and don't pay them back. >> take a bunch of stuff for free and six sunday as of the bill. >> exactly. they're taking away your taxes. might as well as. >> someone else should pay for all your stuff. >> exactly. i mean, who else? forty going to do, work? john: were you going to do, work? john: this keeps me o
that d.c. is doing something to address the deficit. a financial reporter for "the washington post" who writes about the disconnect in the post. i guess that is sort of the interesting thing to me about the last few days. the sequester went into effect last friday and you would never know it. looking at the markets right now, you look at the impact and the consensus is this is going to eat into gdp and not going to grow the way it would have. this will affect poor people significantly. wall street will not feel any of the pain. is that right? >> right now wall street is trying to make sense of what's going on in washington like a lot of the rest of the country. the day the sequester went into effect, the dow went up that day. it's like they view a lot of what's happening here in washington, a lot of political drama and the same with the fiscal cliff. i think they are used to seeing the same movie over and over again. not paying attention as much. >> exactly where i'm thinking of going with this, wall street is really just ignoring washington through all of the hysteria with the fiscal c
our deficit situation is the fact that we do not borrow from ourselves. other countries like japan that have been able to maintain high debt are from themselves. it is important to deal with this now while interest rates are low. we can deal in a smarter way than what will ultimately happen. i agree with the comment. i want to shift my question to tie into some of the comments mr. hanna made. competitiveness is one of the central issues this country faces. it started years ago when we entered a global and technology enabled world. it changed the face of employment in this country. we talk a lot about tax policy and the size of government. i worry we do not talk about what the future competitive situation of this country is because, even though we have seen cyclical employment trends, the trends around the standard of living and around the average american have been very down. you are competitive, you create jobs. if you are not competitive, you continue to create jobs that have a deteriorating standard of living. it seems to me reforming immigration, 7 billion people in the world,
deficit. let's look way out there. keep your eye on that ball. in the meantime we'll pick your pocket today and get medicare and social security now to take care of that problem--let me say one technical thing. >> john: please do. >> that projection of huge medicare and medicaid expenditures around. 2027, 2028 that projection is based on a forecast of a rise in healthcare costs that is just not going to happen. we've had four years of healthcare costs rising at the same rate as gdp. the congressional budget office, which is called nonpartisan is hardly nonpartisan. it's a very conservative economic model and its saying that those rapid growth and healthcare cuts are going to keep going up. it's going to undermine the economy. those healthcare costs likely will not go up, and we're not going to have--i know i'm getting a little technical here. >> john: no, not at all. >> but we should be weary of this. >> it's fascinating when you get past how scary it is. now income and equality, we're almost out of time,, do you see any politician or any group right now making that their top priority
on the well off. they both say they want to cut the deficit. stop adding to the national debt. so fortunately, we have a perfect number system to do it. the conservatives say the federal government should only be spending one out of five dollars produce the by the economy each year, one dollar in five. conservatives also say the federal government shouldn't run up a deficit. simple. then raise one dollar in five in taxes or stop complaining about the deficit. same for the democrats. the math works just as well for them. this they want the government to spend more they should back the revenue level up to that amount. so if both sides want to bargain, if they really want to get to a solution, here it is. both sides have to agree, a, to tax enough to pay for the government they believe in and, b, limit the size of government to the level they're willing to tax to pay for. go ahead. the number system's fine, perfect for haggling and you don't have to head over to the jefferson hotel to do it. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. >>>
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 536 (some duplicates have been removed)